Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Which smoking cessation aids are proven effective according to smokers who want to quit smoking? A report from the Netherlands
  1. Roy A Willems1,2,
  2. Marc C Willemsen2,3,
  3. Eline S Smit2,
  4. Gera E Nagelhout2,3,
  5. Eva Janssen2,
  6. Hein de Vries2
  1. 1 School of Psychology, Open University of the Netherlands, Heerlen, The Netherlands
  2. 2 Faculty of Health Medicine and Life Sciences, Department of Health Promotion, School for Public Health and Primary Care (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands
  3. 3 STIVORO, Dutch Expert Centre on Tobacco Control, The Hague, The Netherlands
  1. Correspondence to Roy A Willems, School of Psychology, Open University of the Netherlands, P.O. Box 2960, 6401 DL Heerlen, The Netherlands; roy.willems{at}

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

The use of evidence-based smoking cessation aids (SCA) is an important strategy in helping smokers to quit successfully and is highly recommended for smoking cessation.1 However, the use of these aids in the Netherlands is particularly low.2 While many smokers seem to underestimate the benefits of using evidence-based SCA,3 the use of non-evidence-based SCA is quite popular.4 ,5 Smokers do not perceive non-evidence-based SCA to be less helpful than evidence-based SCA.6 ,7 The internet might contribute to this misperception, since internet searches for SCA more often lead to non-professional than professional websites.8 So do smokers know which SCA are evidence-based and which are not? This study sought to find an answer to this question.

The data collected in September 2010 were part of a study administered by the …

View Full Text


  • Contributors RW conducted the statistical analyses and drafted the manuscript. MW, GN and HdV contributed to the design of the study. All authors revised the manuscript critically for important intellectual content and read and approved the final manuscript.

  • Funding This work was supported by ZonMw grant number 50-51300-98-010.

  • Competing interests None.

  • Ethics approval The Central Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects in the Netherlands requires no ethical approval for non-medical survey research.

  • Ethics approval ZonMw.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.